Genesis 1-3
Feb. 8th, 2010 05:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolfpurplemoon posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
wolfbiblemoonOnly thought I've had so far (beyond the whole literal creationism=crazy thing) is that Adam just suddenly has that name after being known as 'Man' for much of Chapter 1 and 2, although it depends on the version you read, as my book doesn't mention the name until 3:17 but the SAB starts using Adam at 2:19. Adam then bestows his 'Woman' with the name Eve (3:20), wasn't that nice of him.
Not sure that this is the sort of thing to be noticing, but it's what jumped out at me as I already know the creation story and the fact that chapter 2 starts all over again with God creating everything in a different order from chapter 1!
Actually in a way the first version is better as Man and Woman are created at the same time rather than Woman being created as an after-thought to provide companionship to Adam.
Not sure that this is the sort of thing to be noticing, but it's what jumped out at me as I already know the creation story and the fact that chapter 2 starts all over again with God creating everything in a different order from chapter 1!
Actually in a way the first version is better as Man and Woman are created at the same time rather than Woman being created as an after-thought to provide companionship to Adam.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 03:59 pm (UTC)I believe she became a the opposite of Eve. They say she's the one who causes abortions.
If the bible is false-I believe the church got scared that women would become independent if they heard this story.
Or they wanted to spread lies that abortions was the women
fault for being impure.
If the bibles true- That would explain why Eve was not made of dirt too. God was afaird that he'd make another Lily.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 09:22 pm (UTC)My view would be that any stories that showed women positively were removed from the bible, the Old Testament appears to have been formed at a time when the dominant societies in the region were matriarchal and Judaism was rebelling against this aspect amongst other things. There was definitely an effort to subjugate women that has continued on through to this day in all the Abrahamic religions.
Greetings
Date: 2010-08-25 03:27 pm (UTC)Anyway, enough with the pleasantries, I have 2 questions from this post:
Why is creation a crazy idea?
Why is it bad that women be helpers for men?
Re: Greetings
Date: 2010-08-25 07:15 pm (UTC)The creation story is crazy if it's taken literally, as there is not a single shred of evidence to support a single moment of it. As just another myth amongst many other creation myths humans made up over the millennia to explain the world around them as they understood it at the time then it's just a step in our advancement and helps us see how far we've come in our understanding of the universe.
It is bad that women be helpers for men, or at least wives helpers for their husbands, because it is part of a primitive culture that sees women as less than men. A healthy relationship should be between two people who treat each other as equals and who respect and love each other.
Re: Greetings
Date: 2010-08-25 08:25 pm (UTC)You are making a big assumption saying that the Bible says that women are lesser than men. Another thing is that this "primitive" culture is the basis for a lot of the culture we live in now.
Re: Greetings
Date: 2010-08-26 07:05 pm (UTC)It's really not that big an assumption, the bible mostly ignores women and doesn't name them and there is a lot of stuff about treating women as a man's property, if that's not treating women as less than men then I don't know what is.
I do recognise that our culture is built on primitive ones, and finding out what people believed 'back then' and how they went about understanding the world is very interesting. But that doesn't mean we have to continue to act like them or believe what they believed, instead we should strive to improve our society and study our universe to better understand everything.
So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 1 of 4)
Date: 2010-10-07 11:27 pm (UTC)I am a Christian, and a fairly studious one at that. I have been through Bible school and a discipleship program. I very much enjoy studying the Bible as well as the controversial subjects that surround it. If I must be labeled in my views on Creation I would be what you call a Young Earth Creationist (YEC for short). I would like to comment on a number of things, though I may be vague in some areas; this is intentional. If I am too vague and you would like more, please respond or email me at krspond@gmail.com.
I will address your issues as they appear (as well as comment pertaining to them). Creationism. Since you are not a Christian, let us call this instead Intelligent Design (ID for short).
“The creation story is crazy if it's taken literally, as there is not a single shred of evidence to support a single moment of it.” –wolfpurplemoon
There is MUCH to say about this. So, this is one topic that will be left vague unless we get into the particulars (that is, more specific topics). Not only is Intelligent Design not crazy, but there is evidence for it. As a matter of fact, there is a ton of evidence for it. The most important thing to remember when talking about origins is that everyone has a worldview. Your worldview is like the lens through which you interpret everything. This lens will affect how you interpret science and origins as well. Also, origins science is not the same as observational science. There is no origins theory that can be proven in its entirety by science or theory alone; therefore, any origins belief comes down to faith. One must have faith to believe in Evolution as much if not more than to believe in ID. Also, despite its popularity, science more often than not works against the theory of evolution and other old earth origin faiths.
“I already know the creation story and the fact that chapter 2 starts all over again with God creating everything in a different order from chapter 1!”
First, you should refrain from using the word ‘fact’ when referring to things that you do not know for a fact, especially those things that are not proven factual nor nonfactual. Allow me to offer an illustration. Using my day as an example, this is a parallel to Genesis 1:
Today I woke up from bed. Secondly, I drove to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. Then, I went to play music with my friends. After that, I drove home to my wife, but on the way I dropped off our rental car and picked up our car that was in the shop. Shortly after eating lunch at home, my wife and I met a friend and played disc golf. After that, I settled in the campus library at USI where I currently comment on a blog entry.
This would be an example of Genesis 2:
Remember when I told you that I went to Starbucks? Well, when I arrived today they were sampling their new flavored via packets. I had the caramel. Though it wasn’t that bad, it still sort of reminded me of gas station flavored lattes. I expect a lot more out of my favorite coffee shop. Brea was there. She is the one who served me the sample. After discussing the drink, she gave me a free sample and a coupon that I could give to my wife.
I think that is enough for that illustration let me now explain. Genesis 1 is written in a Hebrew poetry form describing the account of Creation chronologically as it occurred while repeated the common theme “and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day” and so on. Because of that, much of the fine detail is left out. Then comes Genesis 2. Genesis 2 starts to get into all of the details about the things that were created with no particular chronological approach. Notice my example above. All of those things are true. Also, the events are chronological. In addition, the second account I gave is true. I left out the things before because I wanted to focus on my Starbucks experience in greater depth. That account is also true. There is no reason to disbelieve either account that I gave, they just serve different purposes. This is the same with the Creation account.
So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 2 of 4)
Date: 2010-10-07 11:28 pm (UTC)This assumption of yours is based on a lack of understanding of the usage of these words. Remember, we are not reading the Bible in its original language. In Hebrew, the word for ‘man’ is ‘ish.’ This is the generic name for mankind and becomes the proper name of Adam; therefore, the same word is used in both the translation of ‘man’ and of ‘Adam’ depending on the context (being used in general or specifically to Adam). Then there is Eve. She was named ‘woman,’ or ‘ishshah’ in Hebrew. ‘Ishshah’ sounds like man and was interpreted ‘from man.’ It is in Gen. 3:20 that Adam names the woman ‘Eve,’ meaning ‘life giver.’ So, I do suppose that, yes, this was nice of him.
As an offshoot to this topic, I would like to address comments made by others referring to this. The response from sawalsy and then from wolfpurplemoon makes mention of the fabled Lilith. Lilith is no less fiction than any other fictional folk lore or fable. There is no historically accurate documentation of her and the Bible does not speak of her in any sense. This is a completely foolish and irrelevant point to attempt to disprove the Bible, the most proven historically accurate book in all history (and this is an absolute fact, not my opinion). Therefore, anything said referring to this can easily be dismissed; however, some things were said about it that I will make reference to.
Specifically to sawalsy:
“I believe she became a the opposite of Eve. They say she's the one who causes abortions.”
You believe? So do you believe the Bible? Do you believe all you see on TV? What is your basis for ANY belief in ANYTHING? And who are ‘They?’ TV?
If the bible is false-I believe the church got scared that women would become independent if they heard this story.
If the Bible is false, the Church has a lot more to worry about than a fictional character that is not proven by any measure of history. Besides, look around you, women are independent.
Or they wanted to spread lies that abortions was the women fault for being impure.
Do you have any basis to discuss the topic of abortion? Do you believe it is murder? If so, what is your basis for morality? Abortion is the fault of HUMANS. Also, the church doesn’t hold to the belief in Lilith, we never have; therefore, there has not been a lie spread that abortion came from her to blame it on women. Where are you getting you opinions and information?
If the bibles true- That would explain why Eve was not made of dirt too. God was afaird that he'd make another Lily.
If the Bible is true, your comment is completely irrelevant because the Bible does not include Lilith. Anyway, there is an explanation as to why woman was created from Adam. God designs everything according to His nature (I’ll be brief, as this can be very deep). This includes physical and nonphysical things. In this case, we are discussing what I’ll call the Sphere of Relationship. God’s nature is triune, meaning that He is One and Three. God is in constant fellowship within what is known as the Godhead (again, that is simply referring to His triune nature). Also, man came from Him. All of this said, look at the parallel to the creation of man and woman. Man came from God, woman came from man (I am not saying that man is like God in any comparison). Man has a physical body, a soul, and a spirit (which is his life). Also, this illustrates that they are one flesh, referring to unity with God and in marriage (there is much reference to this in the Bible). As I said, this topic goes much deeper, but I will move on from here.
“My view would be that any stories that showed women positively were removed from the bible,”
You are entitled to your view, however this is simply not true. There are plenty of accounts in the Bible that show women in a positive view as well as mentioning them apart from being used as man’s property as you also mentioned. If you would like I could share some of them with you. I believe that if you continue reading the Bible your views on this should greatly change.
So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 3 of 4)
Date: 2010-10-07 11:29 pm (UTC)Do you realize that you must possess some sort of worldview to even state the above notated comments? Who are you to say what is better? What is your basis for morality? Why do you decided what is the best way for a relationship between a man and a woman to function? Also, I would like to point out that it is a presupposition that you possess that makes you think that, according to the Bible, women are to be treated as less than men and are to only be used by men. What God has done in the Sphere of Relationship is created man and woman with roles in a relationship, not status. There is just as much weight on the man (more actually) as there is on the woman. Also, the Bible is very clear that husbands are to respect and love and protect and provide for and care for their wives just like it addresses women to do the same.
“…the Old Testament appears to have been formed at a time when the dominant societies in the region were matriarchal and Judaism was rebelling against this aspect amongst other things.”
The OT was written between 1400 BC and 400 BC. This is quite a large span of time to make a statement such as this. Anyway, how would this be relevant? Also, there is a lot more that happened in this 1000 years than this one mention.
“There was definitely an effort to subjugate women that has continued on through to this day in all the Abrahamic religions.”
Again, the Bible, even the OT, does not attempt to subjugate women in any way. Also, the statement you make afterward is certainly bias with your disbelief in the Judeo Christian God and it brings other religions into the discussion that have no relevance in this thread.
unw0rthys3rv4nt “I applaud you for even attempting this (as most "Christians" don't) and having an open mind..”
I’m sorry, pal, but you have no basis in saying that most “Christians” don’t have an open mind or read the Bible (which you didn’t say, but that is your implication). There are many Christians who read the Bible and who have an open mind just as there are many who don’t. Do you read, study, or have an open mind? You didn’t even attempt to answer anything that moon is dealing with in his reading. Also, not to sound angry or combative, but moon does not have an open mind (look at the version of the Bible he is reading [the Skeptics Annotated Bible]). Which leads me to my closing.
So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 4 of 4)
Date: 2010-10-07 11:33 pm (UTC)***Note that I am the author of "So much to say, if you care to read...' parts 1-4. I accidentally left them anonymous. If anything is posted afterward claiming to me in reference to this address is false. Again, my name is Kenneth Spond and my email is krspond@gmail.com. Anyone may feel free to email me any questions or responses.
Re: So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 4 of 4)
Date: 2010-10-08 02:19 pm (UTC)But I will say that I am definitely not looking for answers or meaning through reading the bible so you would be right to point out I am not legitimately seeking. And it's not a joke to me per se but I will point out things that I find funny as I go through.
This is simply a personal challenge that I am sharing with whoever wishes to pass by and offer their perspective.
Oh and one tip related to the way LiveJournal works - if you press 'reply' on a particular comment then the person who made that comment will be notified of your reply rather than replying as you have to the main post in this way.
Okay
Date: 2010-10-10 09:17 pm (UTC)Re: Okay
Date: 2010-10-10 09:40 pm (UTC)And you really see my criticism as hateful? I really can't understand where you got that from, unless you immediately lump all atheists who dare to speak out critically about your religion into a stereotype of 'hateful atheist', because I think you'd find that's not where most of us fit.
And as for resolving to just be good people who don't believe there is a God? Sure, we'll get on that as soon as the Christians all resolve to just be good people who believe there is a God and stop trying to brainwash all children with their dogma. Oh sorry, was I generalising/stereotyping?
Re: Okay
Date: 2010-10-15 01:02 am (UTC)Please understand that I am completely open to criticism. Criticism has a much different and independent definition than that of sarcasm and mockery. Also, I have debated with and read materials from a lot of atheists, and, among the atheists who make their view known openly by opposing religions, the majority of them are disrespectful, arrogant, and hateful. Now, does that mean that I stereotype the individual? Absolutely not. I originally give all men (and women) the benefit of the doubt. Actually, I had a much different view of you before I read more of your blog. It is your constant sarcasm and mockery that lumped YOU into the crowd.
Generalize and stereotype if you must; however, I would have to fall on the side that believes that no one is good (you'll understand that when you get into the New Testament [and a bit in the Old]).
I feel that we are ALL suppose to read the Bible critically to find out what is really being said. It is criticism that I believe that you are lacking. I believe you are confusing criticism for skepticism. I apologize if I have offended you.
I also want to clarify a poor use of language in my previous post. When I say "good people" I mean to try to be good people. By that I mean, attempting to live with moral conviction in relation to other humans in all avenues. You may call this coexisting, but my implications are deeper.
God, His creation and your journey through the Bible
Date: 2011-01-08 07:21 pm (UTC)I understand that you're not readying this to seek God or to grow closer to Him, however I still commend you for this task. I see you're in Romans now so you've come a long way! I personally am a Christ Follower and I am reading the Bible completely through for the second time. Questions abound. However, with any belief or theory, there will be questions. God, and the way he works, has strategically made it that way. God is very proud and in a twisted way, wants us to follow him rather than making us follow him. There are things left out (the Bible is not a scientific document, rather a historical one) purposefully so that we can understand that we only can know what he lets us. As far as six literal days of creation, I'm unsure of that myself. In my personal opinion I beleive the following. (By the way you're way past this so if you dont even read this so be it, just my chance to type)
-Bible begins "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" It later states he created light and dark. In the beginning, in the Hebrew translation (as written originally by Moses) the word means (for an undetermined amount of time.) This means God had already created heaven and earth or some form of it prior to the creational week. Also, writing was extremely poetic in the time of Moses and the word "day" could have been used to measure any type of period from a literal day to an "age" or era. As you will or have read later, there are a few passages that mention a "day to God is as a thousand years to man." What you take from that so be it, just adding here.
At any rate, just my two cents on the creation. I enjoy reading your posts and will continue to follow along as I reach those points in my Bible. Again, I understand you're not reading to seek but the seed to understanding God has been planted in you by the choice in this process. God Bless.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-23 02:17 pm (UTC)